Talk:India/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

The edit war regarding the addition of File:India.Mumbai.01.jpg to this page needs to resolved here. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 09:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE =Nichalp «Talk»=

09:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I dont like the picture, I have to admit that the scene in the picture is not uncommon in India, more common than people's knowledge of the Mumbai stock exchange.

What up?

16:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

regardless of what the image represents, the caption is incorrect; the percentage of people below the poverty line is not that high. Numerous links to other articles in wikipedia clearly indicate that it is in the 20's. The text next to the picture says 27.5% (from 2000-2005) and the article Economic Development in India says its 25%. The article Economy of India states that "According to the new World Bank's estimates on poverty based on 2005 data, India has 256 million people, 21.6% of its population, down from 60% in 1981 living below the new international poverty line of $1.25 (PPP) per day." Clearly this number is wrong and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.202.114 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't know from where did that 42% figure come from? Firstly, that caption has no source. Secondly, it incorrect as the GoI figures are around 25-30% range. Thirdly, we can find much better images representing the poverty in India.

And to Nichalp, you supporting the inclusion of that image, regardless of its caption, in the name of WP:UNDUE is quite sickening. Firstly, Wikipedia rules have their place, but a consensus should have been reached before the image was added. Secondly, IMO, an image representing income inequality and differences in lifestyle would be more appropriate. And lastly, the image has little encyclopedic value. In the name of WP:UNDUE, it seems that some Wikipedians want to push their own ideology and bias. Random contributors like Nichalp come with their own random figures w/o sources to back them up. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If a guy with over 30,000 edits is "random", you'll have to educate me as to who isn't. As it so happens, you seem to be opposed to the inclusion of the image, just as Nichalp is. Please don't "randomly" jump to conclusions. AreJay (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we all are "random" contributors to Wikipedia. Difference being that I choose to not have an account while someone else does. If the number of edits were to decide a Wikipedians' credibility, then I would be at least 1/3rd as credible as Nichalp. Fact remains, that I'm aware of Nichalp's contributions to Wikipedia since 2005. But that still doesn't prove anything to me. From what I interpret, Nichalp favors the inclusion of the image as he feels that doing so somehow satisfies WP:UNDUE. I might be wrong in my interpretation but if I'm correct, I must say, it is a terribly flawed logic. So, may I request Nichalp to substantiate his opinion on this. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just going through your comments with bemusement. Since you requested a clarification, so shall you get. The

WP:UNDUE

post, in my typical sardonic style, was a statement that I felt that inclusion of the image was not justified as it gave undue attention to slum dwellers in the economy section. Whilst not incorrect (as mentioned by Docku), the scene is prevalent in India. However the levels of poverty seen here is extreme, this is not an accurate representation of the city's poor, and therefore undue.

Experienced Wikipedians who know my style of reply, correctly interpreted it. The remaining attributed me things that I never said, or implied. The least you could have done was to seek clarification before launching the misplaced vitriol. My stance for inclusion of images on this page has remained steadfast for three years: 1. Appropriate to the context of the section 2. Featured picture 3. Balanced in overall context, five images from five regions of India (N, S, NE, C). Also, you got my dates wrong. I will complete five years on WP next month. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this picture is 'that' relevent to the subject. Even though, this picture represents a fact (although the figure 42% should have a reference first.), the question is "does this picture deserve so much "real estate" (aka space) in an important article like this?" This might be an appropriate image in

poverty in india article (where it has already been placed). Padalkar.kshitij (talk

) 09:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP 128.211.201.161. I like your idea of "random" contributors, but your interpretation of Nichalp's position is wrong as mentioned by AreJay. Why would he say, not adding the image is

What up?

14:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the picture means, the 42% number has been disputed, and should be corrected. So far I have not found any place that supports such a number, and it may have just been a typo by the original author who wanted to say 24%, which is far more reasonable. Crastogi (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't helped with this page, so I might have less right than most others to speak up, this seems like a picture that encourages a bit of soul-searching for the editors of this page. Being predominantly Indian (and understandably so) there would be an inherent bias to portray India favorably. This picture clearly does not. But IMHO a depiction of 1/4 of the country being poor cannot be dismissed as

WP:UNDUE. Personally, I don't like the picture, and a better, more aesthetically pleasing picture that is less stark or extreme might be a better idea. Certainly better than the picture of BSE, a rather unremarkable building by present standards, with an unflattering photograph, and arguably not as iconic an image of India as many others. If a rotation of picture-system is on, the poverty one, or a substitute, could be included. You have to acknowledge that such images of poverty are present all over the country and, along with crowded bazaars and chowks, are images that get imprinted in the minds of tourists visiting India. That wouldn't be "selling" the country well though. :( --KeynesJohnMaynard

03:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the image is that it is not representative of the actual kind of poverty widespread in India; rural poverty. It is a reflection of urban poverty seen by many editors perhaps but that is an obviously biased view. I think an image of the poverty faced in rural areas is perhaps more apt. I dont have a problem with retaining the Sensex pic, there is a substantial number of people in India who are doing okay economically. Their number may be relatively small, but at this stage they are perhaps more 'significant' in some ways. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture is most likely adivasis in Mumbai, usually employed in construction and infrastructure projects. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

urban or rural, poverty is poverty and indian whether it is Adivasi or Kshatriya. This picture seems apt as it conveys the two facets prevalent across India. The idea of a picture of poverty from Bombay (I dont mind another picture) seems even apter as it contrasts the stock exchange, incidentally, also from Bombay.

What up?

00:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, urban and rural poverty are two vastly different things. But I dont want to get into that debate here. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me inform everyone that poverty is present in EVERY country and is nothing unique to India Every country has its share of poor, but all other articles do not have such images in their economy sections! This image shows the worst poverty in india and is not represntative of Indian poverty! Nikkul (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. u r right, poverty is everywhere, just with a different level. Showing only the rosy pictures of India is violation

What up?

16:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How is the stock exchange painting a rosy picture of India? It's not like the building even looks that great! It's what the building represents that matters. Many other country articles have pics of their main stock exchanges in the economy section. Most people in India do not have to live in such dirt poverty and do not have to wash their clothes in Mumbai's muddy puddles. Hence it is POV to have this image and impy that 42% of Indians live like this Nikkul (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Docku, I invited Nikkul to discuss the issue as he always has comments about "pertinent images" on India and Indian settlement pages. I have no comments on the image, I would prefer it featured image as per my preferences mentioned above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Stock Exchange image is quite far off the reality of most Indians. How about a farming image? After all, over two thirds of Indians are agricultural workers living in rural villages.

How about some of these images? Lalit Jagannath (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the image from Bihar will be a nice contrast. It represents the rural component economy of India, which supports 70 % of the population. Note that we have to show images that are representative. And since most Indians depend on farming for their livelihoods, we should have an image of that. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely have a rural image considering that the majority of Indians are farmers. We used to have a beautiful image of the Toda tribe but it was removed after many people complained. And I hope people aren't so naive as to think that anything rural = poverty or backwardness. We can add pretty images of India's rural landscape, and who knows, may increase tourism in India's small villages. :) Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a farming image would be great, but it should show farming, not a hut built by a tiny tribe known as the Todas. Nikkul (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In India, 76% of the population lives on less than $2 a day (purchasing power), in nominal terms it is roughly 20 rupees or $0.5. That compares with 73% in Sub-Saharan Africa. 42% earns less than $1.25 (PPP). See [1][2][3]. 70% is either illiterate or has not finished primary education. Out of the remaining, only the elite affords to vocation training.

Yet affairs of ordinary Indians are persistently removed from the article.

Anyone else defending the right of ordinary Indians to be mentioned in the economy section?

Lalit Jagannath (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

dab (𒁳)

13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Lalit Jagannath (talk · contribs) has made similar edits to Economy of India and Economic development in India. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok the economy section is supposed to talk about all economic factors in the country,including infrastructure, economic development, economic history, gdp, imports, exports, etc besides just poverty. There is already one full paragraph on poverty in India. What more do you want? Do you want to erase everything else and make the whole section about poverty in India? Nikkul (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

When information was added about the occupation and income of ordinary Indians, i.e. most are rural workers living on less than 20 rupees a day, it was removed at least two times.

This seemed inconsistent, given how detailed the section is about elite professionals.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please make a section on education in India. The article should contain comprehensive information about school level and graduate level education, as well as research in various disciplines. Pointers on university system, institutes of engineering, management, science, medicine, etc. are required.

India has prestigious centers of excellence in education and research, and the education system unique in its make. These need to be highlighted with references.

Please see the FAQ =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The image of Ajanta caves had Aurangabad, but there are many Aurangabad. So I put in the proper

Dewan S. Ahsan 06:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Farmers in Bihar. Over two thirds of Indians live in rural villages.
• 
  Women working in a plantation north of Chapora river, Goa.
• 
  Man husking rice by throwing it into the air. India is the second largest producer of rice in the world
• 
  Rice plantiation in Goa. India is the second largest producer of rice in the world
• 
  Workers in paddy fields of Kerala, one of the largest rice producing state of India. Agricultural practices in India have largely remained labour intensive, without much use of agriculture machinery.
• 
  Valley of Flowers
• 
  Thar Desert
• 
  Western Ghats
• 
  Ashoka Chakra

I prosose to add the image of Ashoka Chakra in the government section in India. It is because it represents the united India historically and presently. It is the symbol of government in India and it deserves to be added in government. Also there should be pictures in the Geography section. Every country in wikipedia has a geography section filled with colorful images but not India. It is very important to show the natural beauty of India. (Dewan S. Ahsan 05:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)) I wish to add these images to the geography section and Ashoka Chakra in government.

I truely believe that there is a need to add more pictures in the India section to make it look better. (Dewan S. Ahsan 06:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Please see the FAQ =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(+) Other countries such as China and the U.S. have pictures i their geography sections. (Dewan S. Ahsan 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I see you point. We can accommodate an image in the section. Unfortunately, none of the images have a striking element to it, and two of them are under 1 M Pixel. Try and look for some featured-quality like images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(+)I added these images for now until I find better pictures. These pictures still make the geography section more enjoyable to read and bring people interest to read the geography section. This is because when people see that there are wonderful images of the geography of India it will bring their interest even more to read the articles. Thank you! Please let these images stay in the section for couple of days or week until I find better images. Or if someone can find better images feel free to put them up!!!!thankyou!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewan357 (talk • contribs)

Dewan, while it may be okay to add one more image to the geography section of the article, we should first locate an appropriate image (high quality, informative, distinctive, and balanced) and establish at least a minimal consensus on this talk page before adding it to the article. Also we should remember that this is not supposed to be a tourism brochure for India, but an encyclopaedic article, so images should not be added for decorative purpose alone. Finally, (1) please see

WP:IMGSIZE and do not hard-code image sizes on this and other wikipedia pages except where necessary (such as in infobox, etc) (2) sign your comments on talk pages by appending ~~~~ at their end. Abecedare (talk

) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree (as many have in the past) that images should be of Featured quality to find a place in this or any article. Pertinence trumps technical finesse any day. Having said that, I do not think that the images above strike me as special.

fwiw though, the first and the third hold some promise. The first one illustrates the fact that despite the large strides made in the 20th century (green revolution and all), agriculture in India is still far from achieving the levels of mechanisation seen in the West. The third one, which is a good illustration of winnowing also reinforces this point. If these points can be incorporated in the text suitably and if an appropriate caption can be put together for the images, then I think the first and third images can possibly be considered as candidates for inclusion. Sarvagnya 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard of the adage One man's meat is another man's poison. By necessitating a featured picture, it would ensure the technical quality of the image is of highest standards. I'm not sure if you are aware, but featured pictures on the English wiki must have encyclopaedic relevance to an article, unlike commons where any pretty picture can be featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I think instead of adding a generic landscape image (such as Velley of flowers, Thar or Western ghats that Dewan added), a good subject for the geography section would be to add a satellite image illustrating the path of the monsoon winds/clouds over India. That certainly is an important and distinctive feature of Indian climate, which has a significant impact on its population and economy - and this can be outlined in the image caption. The only problem is finding a suitable image :) A quick websearch found this, which is of poor quality. We can get realtime images from METEOSAT and INSAT, but the current season is not very interesting and I haven't yet looked at the licensing issues either. Any thoughts or ideas ? Abecedare (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

the word "independence" in the main box is very wrong as india did not arise overnight. its a 5500 year old continuous civilization and thus should have the words "foundation - indus valley civilization - 3500 bc", then "formation - mauryan empire - 2500 bc", then "independence - ..."

the concept of independc is entirely western and wikipedia must support a NPOV. the indian POV is occupation.........

pls change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.217 (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean to say "The Republic of India" was founded on 15th August. Mmm...interesting and in a way true. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Republic of India was founded on 26 January 1950. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 15:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to cast aspersions on the IP's motives, but the post looks suspiciously like banned user user:HimalayanAshoka's, who was last posting from Singapore. See archives from Jan/Feb/March 2007. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the fact that India has the oldest continuous culture and civilization in the world - quite significant so should be in the lead. 98.234.52.29 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this first on the talk pages of both History of India and Culture of India and gain consensus there. Please also read WP:Main article fixation. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

may you make photos of Indian

) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Please post request on

WP:INB. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

GDP

Hi There,

GDP and Per Capita income need to be updated as in Hindi version. The data should not be different whether one is on Hindi Pages or in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep1012 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated for which year and according to which statistics (World Bank, IMF)? Has the Economy of India page been updated? If not, please post first on Talk:Economy of India and gain consensus there for this edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is for your kind information that there exist other territories within the territory of Goa. The teritories comprises of village communes called as 'COMMUNES OF GOA'(also called as 'Comunidades' in Portuguese and 'Gaunkaries' in Konkani). There are a total of 223 Communes in Goa. More than two-third of the land of Goa (other than forest)belongs to the Communes and the rest belongs to the Government of Goa. As of today the Govt. Of Goa (India) stands illegally on the Comunidades. A grave error has been committed by not including the same in the 'Administrative Divisions' section. A request has been made to wiki:Goa page too.

Kindly coordinate and edit as follows;

Administrative Divisions

28 states

7 Union territories

223 Communes of Goa

A link on 'Communes of Goa' is desired on the India page.

I request members to be careful before making rude comments especially if ignorant of the facts. Kindly make necessary changes immediately because a comprehensive article on 'The Communes of Goa' is due to be published on wikipedia.

References are given below; ^{[1] [2] [3][4][5][6][7][8] [9][10]} For more information; http://www.geocities.com/newagegoa/Chapter8.html?1146661378765 --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bharat Ganarjya is only the term for the "Republic of India".

And why do you delete the region informations? --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit was reverted for the following reasons:

1. Deliberate change to weblinks to incorrect addresses
2. Removal of Official name, that is, Bharat Ganarajya See official gov website

--KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to 1) I don't understand anything from point. Please give a detailed explanation of it.

2)Ok, that maybe the official name for the "Republic of India". But there is still an official name for India itself, and this is Bharat...--Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Though titled 'India' (presumably per

WP:COMMONNAME - does this apply to local languages as well?), the article is about the 'Republic of India' (hence the ganarajya). The lead is bit confusing because it sort of seamlessly flows between the historical India and the Republic (for example, the reference to the Indus Valley Civilization which is largely in modern Pakistan) but, given the history of India, unavoidable. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden

) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You got it wrong. There are two official names for India. There is India itself as found in the constitution and the official name for official purposes. Both are official translations of the same country... Bharat is India, and Bharat Ganarajya is India Republic. This article is clearly about India. If you want to write an article about Republic of India, you can start an article and start copyediting. :-) --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the last one was a joke! Here is a serious proposal. India () or Republic of India () --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

after several years of watching this, I am convinced that keeping this article at India only gives us grief. "India" may mean several things, depending on context, see India (disambiguation). The scope of this article is the Republic of India ONLY. Now this is made plain as plain in the very first line after the page title, but many people seem still to be unable to to read as far as even that before starting to complain or create confusion. Talk about short attention spans!

I suggest that we should move this article to

22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how some other country pages manage it. The following should have similar problems: France (fifth republic 1958), Germany (Berlin Republic 1994), Greece (Democratic Republic, 1975). I'm sure there are many others. Whether they are similarly afflicted by attempts to glorify antiquity, would be interesting to know. Your suggestion, Dab, is not a bad one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

India may be a bit different because of the differences between the historical India and the Republic of India. Much of the history of India is centered around the area that is now divided between India and Pakistan (would Pakistan refer to its historical nation as 'Bharat'!). France and Germany, though their histories are fuzzy around their border regions (and, in the case of Germany, the nation idea is more recent), have relatively well defined historical trajectories. India's historical trajectory is, well, sort of broken. (All nations, IMO, glorify their past, more so when the present doesn't smell that great. That is what nationalism is all about!)--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 01:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spoken, RP. I especially like, "would Pakistan refer to its historical nation as Bharat!" To that you could add Bangladesh; and perhaps southern India, especially Tamil Nadu; eastern India, especially

Bastar. I think some suitably encyclopedic version of this sentiment might be added to the FAQ section to counter the persistent suggestions of adding a boldfaced "Bharat," as a synonym for the subcontinent of antiquity, to the lead sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

India (Bharat) is associated only with the Republic of India. Contrary to this the "Indian subcontinent" as the whole region is called by everybody, may refer to Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and so on. India is as old as the Indian Republic. Hence the scope of this article should be everything about the Republic only. I searched around the country articles and I found particularly the China way interesting. I think the China article is used like the "Indian subcontinent" as a region, with its history and culture all through the ages, whereas the People's Republic is used to describe all the political stands on the various topics. I don't know whether "China" is the right name to refer to that region, but the "Indian subcontinent" has not this problem. Much content in the current India version would have to be moved to the Indian subcontinent article, such as the history content until Independence, and a direct link should be provided in the first lines to refer to the region page with its whole history. I think, this would be the right way. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just move this article to Republic of India to avoid all the confusion? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made recent edits to several sections of the India Wiki page. The objective was to present more information and relevant references to enable readers to get a deeper glimpse. This new version was undone with a recession to an older version with the justification that it was a "dramatic" edit and required consensus on the talk page. In view of this, I request active editors/viewers to make suggestions by comparing the current version and older versions and determining whether the new content really needs to be removed. I believe sincerely that the new content adds more detail about the various aspects of India and in addition two sections that had been hitherto ignored - Indian society (as distinct from culture) and Science and technology, which was omitted from previous versions.

Best Regards. --User:Techraj (talk) 13:39 ET, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on the talk page! The main additions under dispute are the Society and Science and Technology sections you added, which I have quoted below for easy reference.

Before we re-add these sections to the article, we need to decide:

1. Whether we want such sections in the main article, or if they are
   summary style
   article ? Previous discussions (see archives) have suggested an opposition to such additiona, but consensus can change.
2. What content any proposed new section should include and what references should be used ? I hope that, if we do decide to add a new section, we can compose its content on the talk page (or a subpage) so that we ensure succinct but comprehensive coverage, neutral language and selection of topics, and use of high-quality and authoritative sources.

I could critique the language and content in the additions above, but I think that is premature till we actually resolve the first question and I do appreciate that the additions were done in good faith. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare's remarks. Previous discussions have not been kind to the idea of adding new sections. Besides the "parent articles" are the ones that need work; in other words, they should be peer-reviewed and should at least be GAs. As for the additions themselves, here are two quick points.

• The Society addition mentions at the outset, "Most Indians (live) in the rural areas." However, after that, it says nothing about these rural Indians. It talks about the cities, about how diverse they are, about the problems they are beset with, including terrorism, about the media (an entire paragraph!), and (strangely enough) about "diaspora Indians" (another small paragraph). Where does it propose to discuss the large rural segment (two-thirds) of the population of India?
• The Science and Technology section mentions Aryabhata trumping Copernicus. I'm afraid this is the kind of bogus nonsense that patriotic historians of science in India have been routinely foisting upon their readers (after it was initially proposed by
  Mordell's conjecture, Pierre Deligne's on the Weil conjectures, or Enrico Bombieri's on the Large sieve. Ramanujan was great, but we have to keep our perspective. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
  14:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can take this article on a dedicated sandbox page on my user pages, and we can edit it there until satisfactory. Just commenting on different points does not improve anything. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You must mean the proposed sections. An FA has to be stable, so any proposed changes will still need to be discussed on this talk page; however, before any such edits can be discussed, the need for such sections has to be established. The proposed sections already have their parent articles,

History of Indian science and technology and Science and technology in India, which have been greatly expanded as a result of the work of user:JSR. It is there that your offer of help should be directed. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»

13:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper section is definitely undue. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan does not include Indian administered Kashmir(I.A.K) in its main map. Kindly explain why the main main information box on India has a map including Pakistan Administered Kashmir(P.A.K)? Should the Pakistan wikipedia article add I.A.K in light green as well? Or should the India article remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.58.66 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See Question 1 at Talk:India/FAQ to understand why the map in this article is drawn the way it is. If you have concerns about the map used in Pakistan article, please raise it at Talk:Pakistan. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Namaskar frieds (hello),this article is very accurate and sublime but,public health and religion in india should be in main page with neat and short information , it will help to readers to know about religion and public life .And like Germany Infrastructure ,Science ,Education content chapters will enfocus the other important aspects if india, aren't they? so i think that will make India very understandable. wqwqwqwq 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 07:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Rajvaddhan

Taking a clue out of the above, I suggest that we subdivide the Culture topic into subheadings like France and Germany. It'll make the section much more readable and organized. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are we always imitating other countries?

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing out. --

What up?

23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It says in the intro that India is considered a potential superpower. Is this really necessary to put down, as China, Russia, and EU are the other mentioned potential superpowers, and on their pages, that isn't mentioned. So is this really necessary, as it seems like someone is just trying to advertise it or something. Deavenger (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; potential superpower is an ill-defined and purely speculative category. The designation was added recently to the lede, and I have edited it to restore the long standing shorter version. We need to remember that this article's lede is a summary of a summary style article, and should therefore contain only the top-level details. Abecedare (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

concur. dont see the necessity. --

What up?

23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

States are more than administrative divisions, they are also political divisions, since each state has an elected government which wields law-making powers as per the state list in the Constitution. Please revert the title back to States and Union Territories. 70.112.0.5 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

looks like

What up?

03:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Administrative divisions apply to territory like Goa where there are two constitutions, Goa State Constitution and Constitution of Comunidades (constitution independent of State and Union). This has to be rectified immediately. For more read the discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:INB#Comunidades_Of_Goa_.3F --Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the first two sentence of the section, which should hopefully clarify things. I've also removed the reference to India being federal - as we've discussed earlier, this isn't entirely accurate, and the wording in the section on "Government" describes the situation quite accurately. -- Arvind (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Arvind, the states are not simply administrative divisions, regardless of whether India is federal or not. They are also political divisions. I think states and union territories would be a better descriptor. 70.112.0.5 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but the section isn't just about states and union territories. It's also about the bits into which states are divided - districts, blocks, tehsils, and panchayat villages - which are purely administrative. Would "political and administrative divisions" be an acceptable heading. -- Arvind (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am making that change, if you dont mind.70.112.0.5 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I cant since the page is locked. Also, is it necessary to put this under the heading Government. After all, states are not just political and administrative divisions. 70.112.0.5 (talk) 23

07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On the pages of Russia, China, US and so many other countries, the size of the military budget and army, n-power is mentioned in the intro. After all, it makes sense to describe both economic and military power. Why remove the military part from India????Steed Asprey - 171(talk) 7:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The size of the budget, etc. is too specific to be included in the lead of the article. The size and structure of the armed forces is already mentioned in the "Foreign relations and military" section. I just realized that there was no information on India's nuclear command structure (this can be incorporated into the "no-first-use" sentence). I don't favor adding military budget because that's going to change with each annual budget. In addition, the budget doesn't present an accurate picture of how much India spends on defense. AreJay (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

-The size of the budget is not so specific - otherwise, it would not be in the pages of other countries..... The size of the army is mentioned in the "Foreign relations and Military section". But, the bit abt "fastest growing economies" etc is mentioned in the intro and again in the "Economy of India" section. With the same logic, the part abt the economy shld not be present either..... Budgets change once a year only......it is no matter to update it once a year. And as for accuracy, no country really gives an accurate picture of its defence budget... but, like in the other pages, the generally assumed number can be mentioned. Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 5:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so..."one of the fastest growing economies.." is an appropriate term to use in the intro. Regardless of the actual % growth, that term will be valid. It has nothing to do with budget allocation. The point that I was trying to make wrt defense budgets is that there is a huge differential b/w what is allocated and what is actually spent by MoD each year; for the past several years, India has only spent a very small fraction of its defense budget allocation because of red-tapism, etc. Regadless, this is far too specific to be discussed in the lead. Also, the other countries you mentioned aren't featured articles. I have no doubt that such specific information about military size and budget will be removed from the lead of these articles, should they go through the rigours of the

WP:FAC vetting process,. AreJay (talk

) 14:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Eighth Schedule, yet again

I've changed the description of the languages in the Eighth Schedule to "Constitutionally recognised languages". This is more accurate than "official languages" (the languages of the Eighth Schedule aren't "official languages in any standard sense of the word), and is pretty close to the way they're described in other sources, such as the LoC's country profiles. I really hope this wording is acceptable. -- Arvind (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is kinda unimportant, but I was just wondering what the light green area on the globe meant. It doesn't seem to say in the article.74.33.174.133 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Claimed by India, but not controlled by India. Zazaban (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed. All GDP values have , not a . dot. like this $3,288 trillion should be $3.288 trillion. Make first change or Change it to billions from trillion (Kashifyy (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for pointing that error. I have corrected that and updated the figures based on the CIA factbook, since that source provides useful rank information. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

there is typo in all gdp values. put decimal point instead of comma. hans21 (talk) 11:09, 02 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.247.216 (talk)

Don't use CIA as source. IMF is more reliable source than CIA. All Wikipedia's articles on GDP per capita by country, are using the available IMF data. Gggh (talk) 15:54, 02 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Science and technology section is not minor for India, being one of the chief programmer exporters and all...

Also, I would like to add that "India also is the top milk producer worldwide, according to 2005 information, producing 91 million tonnes." I don't know if I should add it to economy section, as it was removed, I believe without even mention of it...

It was 100.9 million tonnes 2006-2007.

[4]

MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think India needs a Science & Technology section, being one of very few developing countries with a space program, nuclear research, huge IT base, etc. Nikkul (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

When we can not translate any name. (Its Language Law) Why the Bharat is named as India in English. If you are Bharati then solve it.

By Avinash Bhola [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.62.101.251 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Its original name was Aryavart, that page is not as accurate as it could be, one of the kings (his name was Bharat) changes the name to Bharat. When foreigners came to india they couldn't pronounce "sind"(indus river), so they called it the indus. india comes from there. if you are researching ancient india, dont look for india, but instead for bharat, or aryavart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev000 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you wanted to look for "ancient" India, you should look at

commonly referred to as India is immaterial and beyond the scope of this article. AreJay (talk

) 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Can you tell me why you deleted reference to Vedic civilization from introduction page. I have been college-educated in India and over here, Vedic culture is taught in the same breath as Indus Valley Civilization. Hindu religious beliefs, Sanskrit etc. are a byproduct of this theme. I know you may have had a consensus on this issue before but it was very difficult to find an explanation in the archives as you suggested. So, I'd love to understand the reason behind this change. India id 25% enviromentally friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.219.112 (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regards --Tech editor007 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the world call this country India while Ghandi called for the British to quit

) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the world does what it does is a mystery. However, wikipedia calls it India because the world does so (See

WP:COMMONNAME). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat

) 00:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In India, people call the country 'India' but with the accent of their own language. In French, it was not called 'Inde' (India) but 'les Indes' (the Indias) and even today people from another generation might say, je vais aux Indes (I am going to the Indias), but they probably mean India, not Pakistan or Bangladesh. OK, so you should try and change the name of the article :-) Trompeta (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cars in India are built so that the drivers drive on the right side of the car, which contrasts with how they are built in the United States and many other nations. In America, cars are built so that drivers drive on the left side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.217.251 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You might want to clarify what you said above, i.e. that you meant "drivers sit on the right side of the car". But again, what exactly is your point? --Ragib (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

People in North America drive on the right side of the road. Zazaban (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Driving side on the main page has been told as Left but actually we drive on right in India like UK!!! Nishant.parashar (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking for quite a while, but I have no answer yet. Why does the country have a very large exclave to the east, separated by Bangladesh? What caused this? And what is this part of the country called? Elfred (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See:

• Partition of India
• exclave, because they are physically connected to the rest of India trough West Bengal
  )

For future reference: such questions are best asked at the wikipedia

WP:Refdesk, where responders are typically happy to go into detail. Cheers. Abecedare (talk

) 03:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GDP

The GDP numbers are too high by a factor of 1000. It should either be in billions, or $1.3 Trillion instead of $1,300 Trillion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealgandalf (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

therealgandalf (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There must be people who do not recognise India as a full democracy in view that its cast system resembles in many respects apartheid. At least the reference to the cast system should be in the opening paragraph and before any reference to the country's apparently democratic credentials. At least that is what seems right to me. Trompeta (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is generally agreed that India is a democracy regardless of the extent to which the caste system exists in India. You will need to provide a reliable source to back up your assertion that India cannot be recognized as a full democracy because of the caste system and you will need to demonstrate that this is not a fringe view for it to be included in the opening paragraph.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 03:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is news to me!! So just becuase a few people in the US are racists , USA is not a democracy? Just who decides that a country is a "full democracy" or not? --Deepak D'Souza 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok This is a repeat telecast from the same editor:[5]. --Deepak D'Souza 05:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good you found it. Racism in the US is not an institution, the cast system in India is very much an institution supported by the main religion of the country, that is why I suggest including it in the first paragraph as well as keeping the fact that India is a democracy. Trompeta (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

First, it's caste, not cast. Second, the caste sysetm is a social structure while democracy is a political institution. How did you arrive at the conclusion that the existence of a caste system debars India from being considered a "full democracy"? Rigid social structures continue to exist to this day in many parts of the world, including England; would you suggest therefore that the UK isn't a full democracy? Are you basing your assessment on

WP:OR). Thanks AreJay (talk

) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A good many people in India have been condemning the caste (thank you) system, as well as during the latest elections: "India's poorest and most downtrodden people do 'dirty' jobs higher castes regard as 'polluting'." [6]. We cannot compare that with England and I do not think Mayawati would. In any case there are no class murders in England [7]. Thank you for your response. Trompeta (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The caste system is an institution??? Wow! In my entire life I have not come across any instutution named "Indian Institute of Caste" or something likewise. The caste system is not an institution. It is a social order that emerged out of Hinduism but is not exclusive to Hinduism alone. The caste system is a feature of Indian society. It is not India in itself. FYI: untouchability and caste based discrimination(indeed any kind of discrimination) have been outlawed by the Indian constitution. There are tougher laws for caste related crimes and affirmative measures to give the historically sidelined groups their due share. You don not have any adequeate knowledge about India or the caste system. You are merely using this page for your personal peeves. I will ignore any further posts from you on this topic. --Deepak D'Souza 04:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Caste sytem is a personal peeve? Perhaps we are communicating over a cultural gap my dear fellow editor. Even though I must accept that your explanation above is very resonable (even if, to paraphrase you, there is no British Institute of Democracy', ergo no democracy in Britain?). Trompeta (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh! Caste system is not a personal peeve. It is, as I said, a feature of society. Your statement that India should not be considered a full democracy becasue of the caste system is a personal opinion. You haven't backed it up with any refs at all. This isn't a question of cultural gap, its about trying to push your own opinion by

weaseling:There must be some people who .... And you are not paraprhasing me, but rather yourself.--Deepak D'Souza

04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

About freedom fighters of India

I want to say that only gandhi ji was not responsible for the freedom of india then why there are no names of other leaders as there is a list of great leaders ? I had tried posting the name of few leaders but it is getting deleted. please help me --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat RegentPark's edit summary[8] for you:By 'led', one refers to the leader of vast numbers of people. The others 'contributed' rather than led.

True that all of them made contributions to India's freedom struggle, but each had a different method. Tilak died in 1920, much before the critial mass movements such as Quit India took place. Bhagat Singh and Bose were leaders of revolutionary movements that worked on the fringes of the freedom struggle as compared to the massive non-violent movement led by Gandhiji. All put together the present statement is justified, in my opinion. --Deepak D'Souza 12:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he may have a point there; I don't think his dispute was wrt semantics. I think something to the effect that the struggle for independence included both non-violent movements (led by Gandhi) as well as more revolutionary campaigns by people like Bose, Bhagat Singh, etc. should be mentioned. I don't think the sentence as it now appears really captures the breadth of the struggle for independence. This can still be incorporated in WP:SS format. AreJay (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I recall there being an extended debate about this issue some time back. May be worth looking through the archives, so that we don't have to start from scratch. Abecedare (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The archive search function is great! Here is the ~400K discussion on the topic:

• /Archive 14 (all of it!)
• /Archive 15 (sections 5 and 14)
• /Archive 16 (sections 1 and 2)
• Also see this short history of IIM by F&F.

I think the conclusion last time was to expand and develop the Indian independence movement and add its summary to the History of India page, whose summary would then be added in this article. That way, (1) it would be easier to ensure due weight, and (2) we would end up developing the sub-articles where the reader can go for more detail. I know that the proposed process was started and User:Fowler&fowler and User:Rueben lys especially worked on many articles related to IIM biographies and events; but I am not sure if it was ever "completed". Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, wasn't aware that this had been discussed before. If there was consensus, I'm fine with it. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep in mind that this is a summary style article and detail should be kept to a minimum. Of the leaders mentioned, only Gandhi can be said to have 'led' the independence struggle. Bhagat Singh is a national hero but can hardly be classified as a leader. likewise, Subhas Chandra Bose's INA never really garnered the same level of popular resonance as Gandhi did. Tilak probably comes closer to being a national level leader but he was a bit early to really be credited for India's independence. I agree with Abecedare that building this into the

Indian Independence Movement is the way to go. (This is regardless of the fact that neither Bhagat Singh nor S C Bose fit into the non-violent civil disobedience set - see the sentence in its entirety!) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat

) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think people hear are insulting Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Tilak Ji etc. How one can prove that only gandhi Ji was resoponsible for the freedome of india. Its ok he was one among the gr8 but he was not only. I think that atleas few big heros should be given respect by keeping there name on this main page of India. Ther is picture of Gandhi Ji so i think this heroes atlest are eligable to have there name on the page of India ( its ok if we dont put there pic and it is not possible also) Tilak Ji who had initated the struggle of Independence Gandhi Ji had just fallowed it. Bhagat Singh led his life for the freedom and after that people really awaken and started fighting for the freedom. So i think that atleast there name should be there. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No one here is insuting anyone. Talk pages are meant to discuss "How to write the article" not to comment about the subject itself. As pointed above this issue has been debated extensively before. There is no need to go through it again. You may go through the archives reffered to above and see what consensus was achieved. --10:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

On the comments on Tilak Ji i would like to say that Gandhi Ji joined Tilak Ji and was influnced by his views. I chalange that Only Gandhi Ji was not responsible for the Freedom of inda as there were many factors for the freedom. I agree on the point that it is difficult to list all the names but there should be some names who are prominent equal to Gandhi Ji the the freedom sturggle. As per the comments wiritten above if the discussion was taken place then why it is still not implemented. My point of view is only that few other names also should be there on the main page of India --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandeepsp4u, you just have to go through the archives and see what consensus was achieved. The discussions were very extensive and the current wording is based on those discussions. Sorry to say this but there is really no point in going through it all over again just because one editor does not like it. --Deepak D'Souza 09:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deepak D'Souza the question is not that one editor is not liking it, i can bring 100 editors hear who wont like this then what will be done. The question hear is what is truth should be fallowed, i am discussing hear not for my linkings or dislinkings but only for provideing equall respect to all the great gems of our country. I just want to know that if the discusion had taken place earlier then why the changes had not beed made or it seems that this India page is owned by few people who only want there editings on the page. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Im repeating this for the third time now and wont do it again. Please read through the links given by Abecadare above. You will find out what was discussed and what was the conclusion reached. I hope you are not expecting someone else to read it out for you? And please understand that

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The India page sees a lot of eager new editors all the time, who dont understand the rules of Wikipedia and insist that they know how best to write the article. Pleas'e dont threaten us with bringing a hundred editors. That doesnt work. --Deepak D'Souza

04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deepak D'Souza i am not threaten you i am answering you on your statement " no point on going on a discussin for on editor" that's i used a senttence " i can bring 100 editors hear who will dislike it" Moreover about the archives you had said i had gone through it and i had found in the end that there was no sound result arrived by such a long discussion. The page of India is still as it is after that discussion also and which shows that the changes are not accepted eaisly by few people hear. About democracy i will only say that you are editing the page of worlds largest democratic nation. I am still arguing on my point as after reading your archives i had come to know that there was no change on India page --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article India shows that there are 610 districts, The link supporting, the claim shows only 585 districts in India, But the Government of India says thare are only 604 districts, Please check out the below link:-

http://districts.nic.in/

Please update the portal accordinlying. as all user dosen't have right to update this article.

Hope to see changes soon. --Makks2010 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I have corrected the number in this article as per the GOI reference.

Hopefully someone will take a look at

Districts of India to see where the discrepancies arise; they variously claim the number of districts to be 585, 611 and 625! Abecedare (talk

) 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

States and Union Territories have the power to reorganise districts, and they use this quite frequently. The number of districts therefore keeps changing. In September 2008, there were 626 districts in India, 606 in the States and 20 in the Union Territories. I'm not sure how to best deal with this in the article -- Arvind (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've taken out the reference to the exact number of districts for two reasons. First, the sentence "Each state or union territory is further divided into 604 districts for basic governance and administration" isn't well worded - it makes it sound each state has 604 districts. We'd need a new sentence setting out the number of districts, and I don't think we need that level of detail in this article which is, after all, only supposed to set out a summary. Secondly, as I've pointed out above, the number of 604 isn't correct even as of today (and I have no idea as to when the number was correct). It's going to be difficult to keep track of the correct number because it changes a couple of times every year, and given that this is a FA, we shouldn't have a number in here which is going to be outdated most of the time. --Arvind (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the previous sentence was misphrased and the exact number unimportant for this article; at best we can mention "further divided into

about 600 districts". By the way, is there a technical difference between "basic governance" and "administration" (as used in this sentence), or is that just redundant ? Abecedare (talk

) 11:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what "basic governance" was intended to mean. I've simplified the wording of the sentence, and another one regarding the Union Territories ("directly ruled by the President" gives the impression that she has actually responsibility for them, which isn't really how it works). --Arvind (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

All the topics about indian defence forces n systems are vandalised with false information with referance to news sites based in pakistan. How come you take referances from pakistani news networks about indian defence to be neutral and trusted.

I hope wiki-india project users and wiki admistrators got my point and will look into this matter and clean up the topic to neutral standards. (Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Please use the talk page to discuss about the article itself, not to discuss related topics. You cna discuss this issue at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. --Deepak D'Souza 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to make an addendum to the topic mentioning the fact that India is a member of G-20 major economies, WTO, and the United Nations (UN). Svr014 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the added sentence from the lede because:

• UN, WTO memberships are hardly unexpected or distinctive for a country; and even G20 is not that big a deal compared to say UN security council etc.
• It is always difficult to pick and choose which organizations are most important and such additions inevitably invite creation of long lists.

That said, I recall that there was a navigational template at the bottom of the article listing all the organizations India is a member of (UN, WTO, SAARC, WHO, NAM, IOC, ...). Does anyone know what happened to the template or if I am just mis-remembering ? If the latter, it would be worth creating one. Abecedare (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, especially UN, everyone is in it except divided countries, even some borderline-unreal countries are in there and I guess someone will say "what about".... eg Pakistan but that was a terrible FA (now delisted) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I ask you to reinstate the added line that says that India is a member of the UN, WTO, and G-20 major economies. Look at South Korea (SK) introduction paragraphs. It says the same about SK. Abecedare, please do not vandalize the content posted on wikipedia. I have reported to the Administrator of English Wikipedia about this vandalism. Svr014 (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Abecedare and YellowMonkey on this. Svr014, please don't mark this type of edits as "minor edit". It wasn't a minor edit. Abecedare hasn't vandalize anything, so there is no need to take any actions against him. Please work with Abecedare and reach a consensus. AdjustShift (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

South Korea is a pretty average article to say the least YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that India's membership in organizations such as WTO and UN is mentioned briefly in the foreign relation section.Plus, at the very bottom, it has a box for international membership, which includes the boxes of foreign relations of India, SAARC, and membership of commonwealth nations. Though I think those could possibly added to the foreign relations of India box, as well as other organizations India is a part of. Deavenger (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added {{International organisation membership of India}} that list all the major organisations India belongs to. However, the template can perhaps be improved (see here) - so feel free to edit and/or expand it. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very imperative on your part (Abecedare) not to 'negate' important addendums made by others. There is no need for any consensus. Obedience and respect is what is required by you. Look at the introduction paragraphs of the country South Korea. It mentions that South Korea is a member of United Nations, WTO, OECD, and G-20 (major economies). Likewise, I want to mark India which is a country in South Asia. India is member of UN, WTO, and G-20 (major economies). All scholars in the US know that not all information posted on WP can be trusted for obvious reasons. Please don't try to teach me some information. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

I suggest that there should be a gallery at the end of the article. Enthusiast10 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to put in the gallery? (Bigweeboy (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

the decimals in the side bar are written as commas. so 3.288 trillion reads as 3,288 trillion which is misleading. i don't know how to edit the sidebar data, can somebody help? Perryizgr8 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Abecedare (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks. but how did you do it? i can't see any edit button.Perryizgr8 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff of my edit. Don't you see the "edit" (or "edit this page") tab at the top of the

semi-protected (which prevents unregistered or newly registered users from editing it). Abecedare (talk

) 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Culturally

The article must include images from all corners of India (as said above), so why was this Image removed? >>

File:Buddha India.jpg

atleast it's of the Indian culture. The Taj Mahal was built by the Turkish (Mughal) dynasty. And talking abt world heritage sites there are many other like the the city of Chandigarh or the Kalka-Shimla Toy train. But there seems no mention to them.

Moreover the Building picture of the "Taj" looks more like a advertisement pic for attracting tourists.

There are NO pic's showing true Indian Architecture (TajMahal's Turkish.. remember?)

02.06.09 HFret (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Taj Mahal is

Mughal, which is Indian not Turkish. It is also the premier tourist site in India and is perhaps the most famous building in India. I can't see any justification for removing it. The Buddha image was removed apparently because it was a copyright violation.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat

) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of other territories of India

Note: I have moved this discussion to the India noticeboard talkpage, since it is off-topic here. Please continue any discussion there. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this isn't the brightest attribute of India (and many other countries), but having the largest sex trade in all of Asia, I think some information regarding that fact should be edited onto the India page. Considering there are nearly 200,000 young and usually underage Nepalese women and girls in India right now being forced into prostitution, I think they deserve a voice. By putting information on this page regarding that we could help them by letting the world know that such suffering exists in India and maybe more people would seek out to help them. I know I have. Perhaps also putting information on those attempting to aid this problem. Non-profit organizations spearheading forced prostitution and brothels for example; as this would give people not only a reason to offer help, but the means as well.

Just my two cents.. Wikipedia spreads all sorts of knowledge but I think it can also be used to help fix the worlds problems by shinning much needed light onto them.

JordenBryer (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is an important issue, but this article which tries to summarize all aspects of the huge country is not the suitable place for it. It should be covered in

dispassionately and let the readers reach their own conclusions. See the links I have left in the message on your talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk

) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that great information. JordenBryer (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited about Indian famines in the history section. Since perhaps tens of millions died during the British era famines, I think that is worth mentioning.

)

I think that is useful information and source, and can be added (with greater details) to

Famines, epidemics, and public health in the British Raj; and possibly in the British Raj article. However the information is undue in this article, which deals with (post-independence) Republic of India. Abecedare (talk

) 17:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see it. The article really 'deals with (post-independence) republic of india'? The history section I edited in describes the whole Indian history.

talk

)

I agree that the famines were important and huge but don't think the sentence fits in with the rest of the article. It would go in the British Raj para but, since there is no other detail about the Raj, this one detail stands out as

) 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included because it is WP:UNDUE...there are several calamities that have taken the lives of thousands in India - famines being just one of the them. Many lives are also unfortunately lost because of monsoons, droughts, heatwaves, cold waves, earthquakes, etc. This would, however, imo be beyond the scope of this mainspace article. AreJay (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Famines have occoured even before the British came and even after they have left. Althoug I must say that with India becomming self-sufficient in foodgrain production and the tons of grains stored( or rotting ) in FCI godowns, the chances of a famine are rare now. If I remeber, there were a number of AfDs last year for a string of articles with titles such as Victorian Holocaust and British Indian holocaust etc which focused on the same source and dubbed it as unreliable. --Deepak D'Souza 04:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue. Famines were common in most countries in teh old days. Especially with such a large population in India (are these stats inclusive of the pre-partition India?) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to B.M. Bhatia's "Famines in India: A study in Some Aspects of the Economic History of India with Special Reference to Food Problem"(1985), there were disproportionately more famines in British India than at any other time in its history.(The rate was 25 times more). That parts of the government had a role to play in the famine in the name of free trade, as in the

talk) —Preceding undated

comment added 03:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Nevertheless, this has no place in the main article on India. Not only is it

WP:UNDUE but also there is no place in a summary article to present the various causes of famines. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones

) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes somebody claim that Bharadhanatyam is not exclusive to Tamil Nadu ?

Hey there are many points ablout Bharadhantyam in Tamil epic Chilapadhikaram which predates any written literature in Kannada.Just because Bharathanatyam is the most wide spread Classical dance in India ,it doesn't mean Bharadhantyam is not exclusive to Tamil nadu (arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Refer this http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64017/bharata-natyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RRRAD (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)RRRAD. This is probably more suited in the 'History of India' section but is important here nonetheless. I think that Kingdoms and Empires of India should be mentioned here. What i mean to say is that those countries whose roots and civilisations have found origin in India should be included here and should be stated as such. These could include the Philippines, Tibet, Vietnam, Malayasia, Singapore, Burma(Myanmar), Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and all other countries, particularly from South and Southeast asia and territories, disputed or otherwise that in reality originated from India. For anyone who thinks this is a joke, its not. It is the interpretation of history and influence of other civilisations which have clouded the past and which have played an important role in your judgement against me.

But it seams that India will cut to small states sooner or later due to biased attitude of govt. and cruel Hindus against minorities as already 150 different groups are struggling against govt. for separation therefore no need to mentioned the roots as its size is already reducing (as concluded by facts and figure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.19.25 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

India is already many nations. Indian nationalism, which developed against colonial British rule, is weaker as compared to various regional nationalism, which are more realistic and acceptable to the people. I would refer the book 'India-A nation in the making' by Arvind N. Das.Manoj nav (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be updated, most of the information is from 2005 and 2007. I made some changes.(Dewan S. Ahsan 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)) Also I made some changes in the beginning of the India section by adding other aspects of the Indian civilization.

Kindly take necessary actions Thanks

Shouldn't this issue be brought up with on the German Wikipedia (dewiki), specifically Rabindranath Tagore's page instead of India on the English version? It is probably best to notify the equivalent of Wikiproject India there, even in English if you can't speak German because there is bound to be at least a few editors who could understand English. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 12:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Indians, specifically people in West Bengal pronounce the name as Rabindranath Thakur. It is perfectly valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.232.208 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

85.7% of the population was living on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day in 2005, compared with 80.5% for Sub-Saharan Africa.[108]- This information is wrong, please check and correct. It should be below 40%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimgeorge (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is in accordance with the source. Note that the poverty line is at $1.08 and about 40% are below the poverty line in India. I'm not sure why the article chooses to highlight the $2.50 level rather than the poverty line - I don't think the $2.50 figure has any meaning. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As RegentsPark says. the $2.50 figure was correct but arbitrary, since that corresponds to neither the Indian, nor the World Bank standard.

The $1.08 was the World Bank's 1993 poverty line. World Bank's new standard is $1.25 in 2005 prices (which is not equivalent to the old figure; see page 11 of the the paper). I have corrected the first sentence of the paragraph according, and removed the comparison to Bangladesh and Nepal, since (1) it was not supported by the source and (2) would be undue in this page anyway. Abecedare (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Under the Government type in the front page for India, aren't you just supposed to put the President and Prime Minister. Why would you need the VP and Chief Justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.224.107 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the chief justice is included as the most senior representative of the judiciary. The VP is less obvious; perhaps one can argue that he is representing the legislative branch as the chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The issue is minor so I won't remove these from the infobox myself, but won't object either if someone else decides to do so. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

is a strange question. The IP should explain why he doesnt like VP and Chief Justice there? --

I C

18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No question is too strange :-). I got rid of the VP, it is not really an important post. I think the chief justice should also go because the judiciary is not technically in the job of governing.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not too uncommon to have the above stuff in the article. It's included in United States, the speaker is also included in that page; same case with Pakistan, but not so with England or United Kingdom. From a logical perspective, it does make sense, as like in the US, the Judiciary, Legislature and Executive are the three branches of the government with distinct responsibilities. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

True (about the chief justice). I don't think that the VP has an important role to play in India but will defer to whatever you guys think is appropriate. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire Jammu and Kashmir belongs to India and no other Country can even touch it. Just draw the map to its original one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.242.98 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to add in the etymology section that the name Bharat was derived from the name Bharata the son of King Dushyanta. The information is already there in wiki under Emperor Bharata category. So if there are no concerns I will make the edit after a day or two. Manohar.sram (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

Made the above change. Manohar.sram (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC).

Where is Alexander the Great in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What does ALexander got to do with Republic of India?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.120.40 (talk • contribs)

Wherever I read, Indian history seems to jump from Asoka to Gupta. What was happening from (say) 100 B.C. to 100 A.D.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.42.142.2 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we need the template {{Largest cities of India}} in the Demographics section of this article, and if so what version is preferred ?

• Compact version without images: [9]
• Version with 3 skyline/iconic images: [10]
• Version with even more images: [11]

The template, especially with the images, adds considerable bloat to the article and is almost as large as some other sections. The images are completely decorative, since there is insufficient room in the template to even add a caption explaining what is being shown. Also the Lotus Temple image in the template is repeated in the cultural section image rotation; consequently on some days we diplay the same image twice in this article.
The template is trsncluded into this article and is not used anywhere else; attempts to reduce or remove images from the template are regularly reverted - most recently by User:Nikkul. Can other editors comment on what they prefer and consider encyclopedic ?
My opinion is that either the template should not be used at all since we can provide more useful information more compactly through text (eg, "India has X number of cities with population over 10 million, Y number over 1 million ... " The article already says, "India's largest cities are Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad."); and if it is to be used, it should not be bloated with decorative content. Abecedare (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the template is hideous and ungainly and shouldn't be in the article. My thoughts:

• If the purpose of the section is to provide detail on the population of the 20 largest cities in India, I would submit that this is probably WP:UNDUE as far as the Demographics section is concerned.
• The images dumb-down the article and have zero encyclopedic value. Nowhere in the India article are "downtown Mumbai", the "Lotus Temple" or "downtown Bangalore" discussed. So what's the point of including these images? If I had to pick one monument or structure to represent Delhi, the Lotus Temple would not be it. Neither would UB City be representative of Bangalore.
• The title of the template is confusing to the average reader, who may be unable to distinguish the concepts of "largest municipality" vs. "largest urban agglomeration". This template basically highlights India's 20 largest municipalities, while the average reader more than likely takes the term "city" (especially in the context of "20 largest cities") to mean "urban agglomeration". There is considerable difference between India's 20 largest municipalities and 20 largest urban agglomerations, both in terms of population and relative rank. I am opposed to this template.

AreJay (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the template is distracting and the current pictures aren't exactly the best choices either (in the earlier rev, Chennai pic was the railway station!), but even if the pictures were good choices, the structure of the template doesn't fit well within the article. Prose on the number of cities with greater than X million population and the largest should suffice. A link to a list of cities and their population, area, density, GDP etc might be useful once that list is created. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So many country articles on Wikipedia have this same template with thumbnails of two major cities. Why shouldn't India? This is an encyclopedia- meaning that similar articles should be uniform! This is not a MySpace, where each page is customizable as we like. We must strive to create a uniform encyclopedia where similar pages are uniform.

UK, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Iran, Malaysia, Netherlands, North Korea, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Philippines

, etc. ALL have this same template. Why shouldn't India have the same template?

I support having two images in that template. We can change the way we define "city" if you want, but I think this template helps the usual reader learn about India's main cities. Keep in mind that the usual reader does NOT analyze the "bloat" of an article. There are sooo many featured country articles which have larger sections and much more information about each individual aspect of the country (Infrastructure, Language, Religion, TV & Broadcasting, Heritage Sites, Education, Science, Tourism, etc.) Saying that this template makes this page bloated is ridiculous. Please have a look at the Germany, Japan, or Israel pages! Nikkul (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia- meaning that similar articles should be uniform! Is this your opinion or a reflection of Wikipedia policy? If all articles should be uniform, can you explain why Wikipedia has article assessment

classes? It's interesting that you bring up MySpace because my own reaction to seeing that garish table in the article was that the table belonged on MySpace and not on Wikipedia. So many country articles on Wikipedia have this same template with thumbnails of two major cities. Why shouldn't India? isn't a half convincing argument. So many Wikipedia articles have poor grammar and POV. Why shouldn't India? AreJay (talk

) 00:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To add:

Other stuff exists

is not a good argument; its more productive to discuss encyclopedic value and due weight. Nikkul, can you address the substantive issues AreJay, SpacemanSpiff and I raised above ? For example:

• Why is listing populations of 20 cities upto with a false precision of 7/8 significant digits
  due
  in this summary style article ?
• How does slapping on a random images and labeling them "Delhi", "Mumbai" etc serve any encyclopedic purpose ? What understanding or information is the reader supposed to gain from those decorative images, without even knowing what they depict.

Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AreJay, you clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I am saying that the FORMAT of similar articles should be the same. If there's a common template that many country articles use, then we should include that on the India page to keep uniformity.

If all articles should be uniform, can you explain why Wikipedia has article assessment

classes

? If you are saying that all articles do not have to be uniform, then can you explain why country articles follow the same format (History, Government, Economy, Culture, etc)? If each country article had its own way of doing things, the USA page would start with Military, the Japan page would start with Economy, the Sweden page would start with Healthcare, and the Canada page would start with a section on Hockey. There is a reason we have uniformity in encyclopedic articles.

Please go read

Encyclopedia Britannica. You will see that every article has the same tables the same sections, and the same format. That's what makes an encyclopedia. Nikkul (talk

) 02:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, is this bit about uniformity your opinion or Wikipedia policy? If it is policy, I am compelled (at least in the short term) to accept it; if it is your opinion, I don't have to accept it. The distinction is necessary. I don't want to get caught up with semantics, but feel the distinction needed to be made - especially given how you've made your point in bold above. That's besides the point. Per Abecedare, please address the substantive issues that this user, SpacemanSpiff and I have raised in your subsequent reply. AreJay (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Any responses to this, or are am I to take it that there is consensus to remove the template from the article? AreJay (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be consensus. When you do that, please add the prose too. I'll look for the appropriate list of cities to link, if there isn't any, I'll create one. -SpacemanSpiff^Calvin‡Hobbes 17:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, I have removed the template and added content about the urban-rural population. Interestingly, despite common perception, the urban share of India's population has not increased dramatically post-independence (it has gone up from ~17% in 1951 to 27% in 2001); however the concentration in the large cities (as opposed to small and medium towns) has increased significantly (see [12]).
Also, the article stated previously (without any source) that "in recent decades migration to larger cities has led to a dramatic increase in the country's urban population." I thought that too, but that reasoning turns out to be a urban legend (couldn't resist!) - the "natural increase" in the existing population, rather than migration, is the most significant contributor to urban population growth (see last para on page 116 and Table 6.5; I saw other references about this too). Just another example of why simply including what we think is right is so risky.
Feel free to copyedit, trim or otherwise improve my addition. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the Nano immage summary:

Firstly, I totally disagree with this statement :"India's strong engineering base and expertise ". It is a personal opinion. None of the refs say that. And that is true only if you count the number of engineering graduates passing out. Quality wise India's engineering talents are hardly world-beating. Really, think about it: what percentage of your PC is Indian in origin? And what Indian product (apart from Nano) does the world talk about? I dont know any.

For the second part :India as a small-car hub

1. This link is a blog of questionable reliability:[13]. The title says "India a car export hub.." but the text doesnt.
2. This link[14] says: India is becomming a hub, not that it is already one.
3. This link [15] also says "India is becoming a small-car manufacturing " not that it is one.

--Deepak D'Souza 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Deepak, I was going to bring it up yesterday, but completely forgot. This bit is entirely POV, and treats the future is bright statements as representing the past and present. In addition, while the Nano is a good product, it is not representative of the Indian economy, the section where it is placed. If at all, a business house like the Tatas should be out there, not a car that is being talked about but hasn't yet become a significant player in the world market. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made changes to the POV sentence. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the unnecessary statement about patents from the caption - filing is not the same as holding (the ref only supports filing) and reformatted the refs, removing the link to the wordpress blog etc. However, I still hold that this picture doesn't belong there, the auto industry is a rather small part of the Indian economy and is not representative of the section. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

True. I think the BSE image is sufficient. The Nano image would be more appropritate if there was some section on Engineering and Industry. How about a GDP chart or something lieke that?--Deepak D'Souza 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur, I believe one image is sufficient for the section and BSE is the best choice for that; this is not a picture book. That said, if we need another image, I agree with your suggestion that a GDP chart would be a better choice. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to rotate the both image in History section as there are many historical facts about india which are very famous and have lots of images for the same. Moreover i would alos suggest to rotate the image showing Gandhi Ji as there were many gr8 incident in Indian Independence so i think we must show them aslso. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not again! this thing has already been discussed twice over. Please dont keep repeating the same thing all over again. --Deepak D'Souza 08:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

what was the outcome of the discussion please let me know and why can't we discusse this again is there any ruel of Wiki stoping this discussion ?.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Didnt you read it? You should have. --Deepak D'Souza 07:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I request you to pelase give me the location of that discussion which happened earlier regarding this issue. --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Deepak is referring to this previous where your contention regarding Gandhi's importance relative to other freedom fighters was discussed.

The current image depicts Gandhi and Nehru who were the most notable actors in Indian history in the decades preceding and following Indian independence. In that sense it is hard to better. But there are other images with similar subject matter, for example this one that not only depict the two, but is also higher quality and was taken at the 1942 AICC session where the Quit India Movement was launched. There are other options available at commons, for example in this and this category. We can even go with a documentary video, though that may raise accessibility issues. Did you have a particular image in mind ? If so, bring it up here and briefly describe why it would be a good candidate. Abecedare (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the documentary video is the best since we can actually hear him speak and see what he did and how he led the people. A video is worth a thousand pictures. Nikkul (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This photo is very nice. Nikkul (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thnaks for your suggestion and guidence. But how can one say that only M.K.Gandhi and Nehru were responsible for the indian independence. We can't compare any one's secrifice and if yes then please let me know how ? There are lots of people like Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, etc etc.. Even we can think about M.K.Gandhi but Nehru was not grater or more prominent among in compare with the name i had suggested. Please think over it--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are billions of people who have made India what it is today. Each person who has lived in India has contributed to what India is today. But we can't include all their photos here. Nehru and Gandhi took the lead role in freeing India. When you think of India and History, Gandhi is the first person who comes around and then Nehru. Nikkul (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nikkul I agree on Gandhi but not on Nehru Sardar Patel was more then him. How can you compare all with the contribution of Subhahs, Tilak etc do u think that contribution is less then the nehru and if u think that then i think we need to discusses on this --Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As the first Prime Minister of India, Nehru's contributions as PM, good or bad, have changed modern India forever. Like him or hate him, Nehru's image does deserve to be there. --Deepak D'Souza 08:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deepak That's ur POV about Nehru but its not general thinking about Nehru. I think we must discusses about this if you want.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not here. Gnanapiti (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. let me see: If I say that Nehru's image deserves to be here, it is POV. But if you say that Nehru's contributions were less than X,Y,Z, it is not POV?? --Deepak D'Souza 09:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deepak ya i am correct becuase u are only promoting whome u liks and that's nehru but i am promoting all x,y,z. What do u say now ?--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. In addition to being recognized for his contributions to the independence movement, he was also India's first PM, and that provides significant reason for his picture being up there. Also, please note that

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to correct perceived wrongs. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes}

17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice joke my friend then u must put the picture of first president of India, the Constitution writter of india etc etc.. Please read my sentence carefully i am not neglecting him i am just asking that how one can compare the amount of contribution so to justify every secrifice few more pictures must be included.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to replacing

) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Either image works. The second one is of better quality, but the first is a better picture IMHO. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ill give the second image a plus point for quality. --Deepak D'Souza 07:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I still support the rotation of image in this section. I am opposing this move as its same as was earlier. There must be rotation of image in history section of as indian history is evolved around Nehru Gandhi it is much longer then that. I think we are only showing the 60 yrs history by this picture. If we try to rotate the image with various others then only the history section will be justified.--Sandeepsp4u (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

support 1942 image. Better quality. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I also support the second Image (1942). Much better quality than the first one. Gandhi and Nehru are more clearly visible in the second image. Good idea to replace it. Kensplanet^T_C 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a new image of the Hoysaleshvara temple in the demography section? No context, bleeds into the next section and is in excess of already existing good architectural images. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the National personifications nav bar in the article is absurd. I reverted addition once, but it's been added back. A link to Bharat Mata if there's context is acceptable, but a nav bar with links to every other country's personifications?? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that template is completely undue; the personifications are not even worth mentioning in the article, let alone adding a whole navigational template for the purpose. The various names and official symbols of India are already covered in the article, and the term Bharat Mata belongs in the

Names of India article. The {{National personifications}} should perhaps be deleted, as it is a list masquerading as a navigational template; for the moment, I have removed it from this article. I have also removed an extra and unnecessary layer of collapse box that was recently added, which just added a navigational speed bump without any countervailing gain. I also removed the SAARC and Commonwealth navigational templates, since we already provide links to all the significant international organisations of which India is a member. Abecedare (talk

) 07:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me, editors SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare, as I find both your arguments quite untenable. Even though the names and official symbols of India are covered in the article, there is not one link in the article that points to Bharat Mata, the long-term personification of India, and powerful in the minds of the Indian people. No not one. You want absurd? That's absurd. The addition of the Np Navbar might seem absurd to you, however it is anything but absurd. If you were a citizen of a country, who happened to hold high the symbols of your country, such as the flag, the colossal statue in the harbor, the sculpture in front of the leader's building, whatever the widely recognized symbols may be, you might sing a different tune.

You say that the Np Navbar should be deleted on the grounds that it is "a list masquerading as a navigational template". What is any nav. template but a list of other articles that are related to the subject of the article? If this is your reason for disliking the navbar, then you must dislike ALL navbars for the exact same reason. Are you beginning to see why your reasons for reverting my edits cannot hold up to scrutiny? And the other navboxes you removed, Abecedare, are also very important tools for readers to use, including the Template group you dismiss on a whim. Template grouping is a practice designed to make this encyclopedia appear more like an encyclopedia and less like a circus. If, when readers finish an article and come to the Template group, they want to see what's inside, then viola! a whole new array of choices for further reading open up to them!

Rather than being a "speed bump", this and other Navbars help readers to smoothly make a transition to whatever other related articles they may want to peruse. Moreover, this particular Navbar, which holds the historical personifications of twenty one countries including India, can give readers the important information that other people in other countries also personify their beloved countries, and they get the feeling that we're not so different after all, are we.

In the end, the purpose of all Navboxes is to FOCUS readers on the related articles and subjects under certain headings and titles. Navboxes give people reading choices so that their curiosity may continue to be piqued by the subject that interests them. They serve several important functions in this encyclopedia, and they deserve better than the negatives you have tossed at them. I shall not revert your edits again for a few days to allow some time for you to perhaps rethink your positions. Then, if you still feel the same, there may come a need for some uninvolved editors to come and help us arbitrate this conflict. I say this because I strongly believe that I am right about all this; however, I have been wrong before, so it's always good to seek the opinions of others.

I do respect you and your opinions, and I want to make that very clear to both of you. It's just that your arguments for noninclusion of these important navigational aids to readers make absolutely no sense to me. Please do reconsider.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  08:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To continue

So, editors Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff, here we are a few days later, and it's time to go forward on these issues. Let me say first that, even though some of the things said above (like "absurd", "completely undue", "not even worth mentioning", "list masquerading as") might be construed by some editors who have put as much time and work into a template as I have to be uncalled for, even uncivil, I on the other hand will continue to

on your parts. I see by both your contributions that you have the same end in mind that I have... to improve this article and, ultimately, this encyclopedia.

The reason I assume good faith on your parts and, as well, respect your opinions, is because I'm acutely aware that I am far less involved in this particular article and its related articles than the two of you are. Hopefully, you will understand that I have put a lot of work into the Np Navbar just to get it to hold more than twenty countries. It's entire focus is to show the people of the various countries in the Navbar that they are not alone when it comes to personifying their beloved nations, that they can stretch their imaginations and learn about the historic personifications of other people in other areas of the world. That's the focus. That's the purpose and focus of this {{National personifications}} Navbar.

When we left this, we seemed to be in complete disagreement about the Np Navbar and the other Navbars, as well as the Template group issue. Since none of the Navbars have been reinstated, I take this to mean that neither of you feel differently than you did a few days ago? That would seem to be the prudent conclusion. Is there room in your opinion set for reaching a settlement via compromise? Please let me know your thoughts on these matters, as I am always willing to learn from editors who've been working on the Wikipedia for as long as both of you have.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I somehow missed your previous reply, or I would have responded earlier. Anyway, lets keep the issue of whether the {{National personifications}} template should be deleted or not aside (since this is not the right venue for that discussion, and I don't have strong feelings about that point) and concentrate on whether the template should be added to this article.

I continue to believe that it is not suitable for the India page.

• Firstly, this is a summary style article and while it necessarily mentions the national flag, national emblem, national anthem and national song, and even lists the national animal, flower, tree, fruit etc., getting into the various unofficial designations and symbols for India would be undue. That is the reason, the personification Bharat Mata is not mentioned in this article text or in the table of national symbols. Also as a summary style article, it cannot possibly list navigational templates for the 1000s of subjects that are linked to India, let alone their analogs for all other countries (say, a template each for {{National animals}}, {{National plants}}, ...; you'll note that these are redlinks, since the content is correctly centralised to a single article like List of national animals, instead of being transcluded across 100s of pages).
• Secondly, the relevance of the template to this page and other country pages is doubtful: while it is reasonable to expect that a reader of the article Uncle Sam will be interested in learning about other national personifications, it is a stretch to argue that a person reading about United States will want to next navigate to Bharat Mata.

So if you do want to retain the template, add it to the pages on the individual national personifications (although I believe that even on those pages it is better to simply link to the National personification page instead), rather than adding it to the country mainpages themselves. Hope this post makes my reasoning clearer. Abecedare (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I called the addition of the nav bar to this page absurd, not the nav bar itself. If you think that is uncivil, that isn't something I can do much about. I stand by my statement, a nav bar with 20+ links being added to an article should have a majority of those links related to that article. In this case, there is just one link that is related to this article, making the nav bar undue in this article. As far as adding a link to Bharat Mata within the article if there's context, I'm not opposed to it; I'm not exactly for it either, but I don't have any specific objections. As far as {{National personifications}} goes, I did not comment on its utility, value or structure, and I have no intention of doing so, my only opinion, and a very valid one is that it doesn't belong in this or any other country articles, but given that I'm not involved in any of the other country pages, I'm not going to revert or start a discussion on any of those, unless it comes to a general forum. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Thank you both for your further comments. We seem to be at an impasse as concerns the National personifications template. Abecedare, you did not address the issue of those other templates you removed, which I also oppose. Those templates were in place when I installed the National personifications template, so removing them may go against the

policy. Nor was the issue of the Template group addressed. Do you agree then that those Navbars you removed and the Template group can be reinstated?

On to the next step, then. Since there are just the three of us involved in this discussion, and the two of you appear to be fairly like-minded, I shall ask for a third party opinion as soon as I have some time. Thank you again very much for your welcome participation!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to expand upon the reasoning for removing the SAARC and Commonwealth template, and the encapsulating navbar, but it may be better to address the issues sequentially, since this is not really an emergency. Perhaps we can reach a consensus on the {{National personfications}} template first with, hopefully, other editors chiming in ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, I came here from

. A navbar on national personifications seems to me completely out of context in this article. A navbar is meant to help people navigate between subjects which are all strictly related with the article, sharing a common theme and/or of the same category of the article itself. This is not the case Therefore, the navbar is properly located to the articles of the national personifications themselves, not on the nation's article. I understand the concern of Paine Ellesworth in wanting a link to the national personification of India, and I agree on such link to be added, but the navbar is not at all the right way. Hope it helps. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cyclopia, for coming and for posting your opinion! I shall accede then to the wishes of the two involved editors. Abecedare, there is no reason for you to expand upon your reasoning for removing the SAARC and Commonwealth template. You and SpacemanSpiff appear to have the best interests of India at heart.

So I will leave you with one thought... I have checked every article, each and every country article on the National personifications template. I did this to see if there were any other editors who felt the same way you do about my adding that template to the country pages about a week ago. There are several other editors involved with those articles and who have made recent editorial improvements. And there are several recent to fairly recent discussions on each of their talk pages, and yet no discussions about the additions of either the Np template nor about the Template group. The two of you jumped on this directly after I added the template and the Template group. And we must accept that all the other country pages are also watched very closely, just as you watch the India-related articles. So the question that arises is... Out of 21 countries, each with several different editors improving their country article, why do all of those editors accept the changes, and why is India the only country article that is not allowed to benefit from the inclusion of these templates?

Eventually, there will be more countries added to the template. Before I fixed it, it would only hold twenty countries. Now it can hold as many countries as have national personifications.

I very humbly ask that both of you reread the points I made above. I personally believe that every Navbar belongs on every page to which it links, no exceptions. This is because every Navbar has a different focus for the readers, and every reader of this encyclopedia is entitled to the reading choices that these Navbars provide. They are located at the ends of the articles for a reason. The Navbars are there to give readers choices for further reading. And all of our readers deserve these options.

Thank you very much for the time and trouble you both have taken to debate this issue with me. Whatever your final decision is about the Np Navbar and the Template group, I firmly believe that the article on India and all the other India-related articles you are involved with are truly in good hands!

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paine. First of all, thanks for your nice words. It doesn't happen often to find such high courtesy in editors with which there is a disagreement. That's the spirit of WP at its best, and I thank you. That said, I fully understand your points, yet they do not convince me completely. I want to make it clear that it is purely, let's say, a consistency matter.

The use of a navbar is that of helping the reader to go and look articles which fall under the same category or that bring a strict relationship to each other. For example, if you look at University of Cambridge navbars, you will find that such navbars all link to other universities. For the same reason, a navbar of personifications should be put on articles about personifications, to allow the reader to find other examples of personification. The problem is: the other national personifications of the navbar would be not related to India, and as such would be out of place.

I understand your concern of India's personification not being linked. For this, I suggest you two things. First: include the national personification of India within the India topic navbar. It makes complete sense for it being linked there, and it would be a nice addition. Second: find also, if needed, a suitable place in the article for it to stay.

I think this can satisfy your requirements. I hope it helped. --Cyclopia (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, Cyclopia, especially if the involved editors agree. It can be easily and subtley done by placing the Np template at the Bottom, under "Portal", in brackets rather than template nesting, which appears to introduce some interesting and undesirable effects that I'm not yet savvy enough to deal with. It would look like this...

Except, of course, it would only be collapsed when it is used with other Navbars. Thank you for the suggestion. If editors SpacemanSpiff and Abecedare accept this compromise, then I can offer it up to the Talk page of the India Topics template.

Paine, though I know this is not the right forum for the discussion, let me briefly outline a couple of reasons I don't believe that "every Navbar belongs on every page to which it links"

• Firstly, for an article like India the number of related nav. bars easily numbers in the thousands (there are ~100 potential navbars just for the
  Mediawiki transclusion limits
  before then, but we can look past such technical detail for this thought experiment.
• More importantly, as editors of encyclopedic content, it behooves us to exercise editorial control, which involves deciding what to say and what to leave out from a particular article. We need to provide a reader with guidance on what we think (based on reliable sources and our judgment) is the most relevant information he needs to know on a subject, and this is true even for the links we choose to include withing the article body or through navbars. By dumping all related links at the end of the article, we re-mix the wheat with the chaff, and do our readers a disservice.

That said, I do appreciate the polite tone of this discussion. If anyone can suggest an appropriate means for linking to the

3O}} template from the article now ? Abecedare (talk

) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. And I do see the wisdom in your above reasoning. How do you feel about the Third Party compromise that Cyclopia suggested above?

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you (or me!) misunderstood Cyclopia's suggestion: he is suggesting adding a link to Bharat Mata from India or {{India topics}}; not adding the {{National personifications}} template in toto to the {{India topics}} template. The latter is not a good idea since that means that we link to national personifications of Iceland, Poland, Portugal UK, etc not only from this article (where we now agree they don't belong) but also from around 100 odd articles that transclude the India topics template.

As for linking to

Names of India, and the {{National personifications}} template can be added to the Bharat Mata article. Abecedare (talk

) 04:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, after rereading Cyclopia's suggestion, I see that you are correct. So I modified the Navbar above. I know you think that Bharat Mata should not be in the India Topics Navbar, however if it were to find a place there, it would probably fit best in the "Culture" section. As I said, I will leave that up to you and other involved editors who may take an interest.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

While I still believe that a link to Bharat Mata would be undue in the {{India topics}} template, if you, or anyone else, adds it there, I am not going to revert or even object. After all that would hardly be a momentous change; nor would it be in the top million list of things-that-can-be-improved on wikipedia. :-) I know none of us planned to discuss this issue at the length we did, but I have no regrets since it was all polite and thoughtful. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Abecedare, and as I said, I will make no more changes involving India's national personification, Bharat Mata, anywhere. I will leave that to any involved editors such as yourself and SpacemanSpiff who may want to make any changes either to the India article or to the India Topics navbar.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)